[SOLVED] Problem with PC closure

[boxino]

Virtualbox 5.2 If I shut down the PC, and distractedly i did not close the underlying virtual machines, proceed automatically.
Generally it is a positive fact, unfortunately in some cases not. It is possible to specify which VM can shut down or save automatically and which one should never save and ask the user
Thank you

[BillG]

I never shut down my PC while a vm is running, except by accident. It is almost as dangerous as a power failure. Having said that, I have never had any problems restarting a vm when I have powered down the host by accident.

[boxino]

It can actually happen more often than you think. I believe that a prevention mechanism would be useful.

[BillG]

Perhaps it would, but it is not something that VirtualBox can do anything about. The tests would have to be done by the host OS. That is where the checks for still running programs are done on shutdown of the host OS.

[boxino]

I understand, unfortunately if the machine is saved the controls are ignored and the risk of doing damage is concrete with some applications ...

[socratis]

the risk of doing damage is concrete with some applications

Then you should take extra care, and extra steps as in to make sure that the VMs are correctly and completely shut down before you shut down your host. There are still some things that have to be taken care of manually. Or via a script where you shutdown the VMs cleanly, and then you shutdown your host.

[mpack]

Backups, backups.

[boxino]

Could not Virtualbox stop / block the linux shutdown procedure in order to signal that a virtual machine is not closed?
Eventually, for some, leave green light for other red lights.
It can be considered as a request for a new function. Thank you.
P.S. Backups? Of course.

[boxino]

Backups, backups.

Ok, backups but if i use encrypted disks and I close the virtual machine with them still open and distractedly open them from another location the disk and the data stored in it are likely to be damaged. The damage could occur before the backup. In my opinion it is essential to provide an option that allows the machine to be closed automatically or not. Previous versions 5.1.x always required confirmation of closure. Now with the new one, in my opinion, providing this option would be very useful. See you.

[boxino]

Backups, backups.

Another problem is that if the virtual machine is updating and is closed or saved, before it has completed operations, it may remain irreparably damaged.
Unfortunately we are not robots so the probability that these events happen is not low. It's no good...
Adding an option to allow closing on confirmation, giving the user the possibility to choose, does not seem to me anything transcendental.

[socratis]

Adding an option to allow closing on confirmation, giving the user the possibility to choose, does not seem to me anything transcendental.

Source code donations are welcome. But make sure that they work on all supported hosts/guests. And if you don't mind me pointing out a flaw in your logic:

Could not Virtualbox stop / block the linux shutdown procedure in order to signal that a virtual machine is not closed?

No, it shouldn't. Because if any process goes wild and decides to stop the system from shutting down, the system is not in control. You can't let that happen. Not allowed.

[boxino]

Sorry but in the previous version (5.1.xx) if there were virtual machines turned on the operating system did not close and the virtual machines asked if they could be closed (or saved) or not. In version 5.2.xx VirtualBox automatically starts to save virtual machines without asking for anything . This is not about making code but about putting or restoring a check. If then there was a chekbox in which the user can decide, at his discretion, that the specific machine may or may not automatically close / save it would be very useful, in my opinion . I'm not able to make these changes autonomously but unfortunately I think they would be very popular with everyone.
See you

[socratis]

I'm not sure if anything has changed between 5.1.x and 5.2.x. Could you verify it? It's easy enough to downgrade and make sure that this is something that used to work. If you can find the version that this behavior changed, it could help.

I'm not saying that there is no reason behind that potential change, I simply don't remember that even happening.

[boxino]

I have installed both version 5.1.xx and version 5.2.xx, on two different installations, I confirm this behavior since version 5.2.1x. On both I use linux as s.o. main and I have no way to try on Windows.
What has been changed this I do not know but it is possible to govern the change by programmers and/or add my request function to select "save immediatly or not" the vm machine..
I do not know if you can do some testing to confirm this "anomalous" behavior of the 5.2.xx version
See you

P.S. Now i have 5.1.32 and 5.2.26 version on my linux installations.

[boxino]

I'm not sure if anything has changed between 5.1.x and 5.2.x. Could you verify it? It's easy enough to downgrade and make sure that this is something that used to work. If you can find the version that this behavior changed, it could help.

I'm not saying that there is no reason behind that potential change, I simply don't remember that even happening.

Did you do any proof Do you have news